Chassis: Red Bull Technology Class: F1 2014 Engine: Renault RS34 Energy F1 1.6L Turbo V6 Fuel: Petrol Transmission:8 speed sequential Brakes: Carbon/Carbon 0 Weight: – Fuel Tank: ATL Year introduced: 2014
Red Bull Racing revealed its 2014 car, dubbed the RB10 at the Jerez circuit ahead of pre-season testing. The car appears to still be part of the family line running back to the 2009 RB5, despite the major technical regulation changes.
Whilst the car did not take to the track during the morning of the opening test it did roll out before the official sessions started. Allowing a first look at the design.
The nose of the RB10 is at first glance quite deceptive, as the front impact structure remains unpainted. The front of it contains the driver cooling duct. There has been speculation that this ‘keel’ nose as Adrian Newey calls it is likely to be heavily revised before the first race.
There are a number of of very interesting details in the nose area, not least the use of an S duct. So far Red Bull is the only team to adopt this layout.
The lower duct is visible under the chassis, and appears to have a split in it, suggesting that at least part of the air is being used for another purpose (likely cooling).
The split in the duct is clearly evident (above), air is fed through the nose between this duct and another on the top (below)
The sidepod region of the RB10 revealed that the car was in an incomplete state at its launch, not the radiators (or the volume where they should sit), covered in tape.
The pod wing, and turning vanes are continuations of concepts seen on the RB9
These parts were key elements of the aerodynamic package last season and are certain to be changed throughout the year, perhaps even throughout testing we will see a variety of iterations.
The roll hoop and airbox are clearly continuations of the RB5-RB9 trend, compare the 2014 RB10 (above) with the 2013 (RB9) below. Interestingly the Red Bull seems to feature less cooling than the Toro Rosso despite sharing many drivetrain components including the complete power unit.
At the rear details are sketchy for now, the team did not let anyone get too close during the launch and the car did not run on track for the first hours of testing at Jerez.
Notable on the rear floor are the cutouts ahead of the rear wheels, and it is another car using strakes to channel airflow around the diffuser edges.
The rear suspension is as expected a pull-rod layout
The Red Bull had significant cooling problems, which in the end saw the team make an early departure from the test. But before it left there an additional cooling port was crudely added to the cars side pod.
A look at the RB10’s front brake duct, a crucial area this season due to the narrower front wings.
TEST 02: SAKHIR, BAHRAIN
Red Bull once again had very little running with the RB10 on the opening day of the test, some fairly crunchy looking meetings between senior members of the Milton Keynes based team and Renaultsport F1 were seen taking place in the paddock. However Red Bull has admitted that Renault is not fully to blame for the cars limited mileage. “It was, you could argue, a result of aggressive packaging but we felt that we needed to take a few risks to try to get a good package that would minimise the aerodynamic damage of this very large cooling requirement” Adrian Newey told the press. Before raising the characteristics of the Renault engine itself as part of the issue “the Renault seems to have a particularly large cooling requirement. Everybody of the three engine manufacturers will have a different target for how hot their charge air is going back into the plenum and Renault have given us a fairly challenging target. It has all sorts of advantages if we can get there, but it is not easy to achieve.”
Race Engineering Co-ordinator Andy Damerum added: “It’s been a very long two weeks for everyone back at the factory and I have to say that while it might not appear so on the surface there has been a big improvement since Jerez. We are obviously playing catch-up and for us this was very much like a first test, so we were sending the car out to do one lap, then two and trying to build from there. In that regard the laps completed were good. However, we were sidelined by a mechanical gremlin but one unrelated to the issues in Jerez. That’s the way of testing. All these problems have to be ironed out and only reveal themselves as you progress. We’ll look at solving that issue now and we’re itching to get out on track again tomorrow.”
According to an article in the German press Red Bull has two separate solutions to the overheating issues, but it is not certain that either will work. Notably the Bahrain climate increases cooling demand significantly with a high ambient and track temperature.
Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Lotus all had very limited running once again but Caterham managed a respectable mileage with 68 laps on the board after the first days running at Sakhir. Something that suggests that the issues may all be related to tight packaging around the RS34 power unit on the other cars while the green car has a much larger rear end.
Red Bull again had a temporary fix on its side pod to improve cooling, at Jerez a much larger slot was fitted in this location but a hastily fitted tube is now present curving at slightly less than 90 degrees back into the bodywork.
A good look at the rear end of the RB10. The sculpting of the inner face of the rear wing endplate is very interesting, note also the serrations at its base. The exhaust exit on the RB10 seems to be higher and further forward in the car than on other Renault runners where the exhaust sits just about the rear crash structure. The rear wing support is mounted above the exhaust exit.
Note the flow vis dye on the rear wheel, this will be from a test run on the rear brake duct winglets. Detail of the cars diffuser is also evident.
During the little running the team got Red Bull did some aero evaluation work. The front wing elements were one subject of study. The shape of the front crash structure is also evident in this image.
Very heavy flow vis work was done on the sidepod of the car.
The rear wing elements also received attention.
TEST 03: SAKHIR, BAHRAIN
Race Engineering Co-ordinator Andy Damerum: “Obviously we have had a lot of problems during testing, but we understand the problems and hope to have fixes in place for Australia. We know the pace is in the car, as we saw from Daniel’s performance here; what we have to do now is put all the pieces together and establish reliability for the race in Melbourne. There is plenty of motivation in the team and we’ll keep working hard over the next two weeks.”
Red Bull continues to struggle with overheating. Meanwhile a good look can be had of the rear wing support. Note that the cooling ducts hastily added at the previous two tests are absent.
However after a little bit of running the additional ducting re-appeared, this time with what appears to be an inlet and an outlet. This is clearly not ideal in an aerodynamically important area and it features on both sides of the car.
Despite having limited running at the final test Red Bull still managed to get in some aerodynamic evaluation work, here the RB10 is fitted with a large array of pitot tubes. Note the aerial section trying of monitor airflow not influenced by the car.
A new ‘monkey seat’ style winglet appeared at the final test, but unlike other cars which blow the exhaust gasses onto the underside of the winglet, the RB10 version blows the gasses onto the upper surface. The tailpipe surround appears to have gained some thermal barrier coating. Note the twin radiators just visible inside the main cooling exits.
Some flow vis work was done around the sidepod undercut and its upper surfaces.
RACE 01: ALBERT PARK, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA
A look at the RB10’s front brake setup could be had in the pit lane as the car was prepared for Free Practice 1. Note the caliper mounted at the base of the disc (which has been removed).
Red Bull’s reliability issues continued to dog the team on the first day of running in Australia. As the mechanics (along with Adrian Newey) attempted to fix a problem the TV cameras got a great look under the skin of the RB10.
A question has been nagging observers of the Red Bull RB10, namely where is its mandatory camera housing is. The answer became apparent in Free Practice 1,it is mounted in a new bump in the nose cone (above). This is a clever interpretation of the rules which state that “All cars must be fitted with at least five cameras or camera housings at all times throughout the Event” it goes on to say “All cars must be equipped with five positions in which cameras or camera housings can be fitted. Referring to Drawing 6 (below), all cars must carry (i) a camera in position 4 and (ii) a camera or camera housing in positions 2 (both sides), 3 and either 1 or 5.” Red Bull is pushing this regulation to the limit but is apparently just inside it.
With the nose (and camera housing) removed the front bulkhead design is revealed (below). The torsion bar position is obvious, note the ducting under the nose, this is clearly more than simple driver cooling and the ‘s duct’ feature. When the car is run a plate covers up the master cylinders and the various other components allowing the air to flow though the nose.
During free practice the team continued its aerodynamic evaluation runs, flow vis was applied to the underside of the rear wing and the diffuser.
Another look at the front brake layout with a few more components removed.
EXTRA: RED BULL DISQUALIFICATION
Red Bull Racing was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix after it was found in post race inspection that the RB10 driven to second place by Daniel Ricciardo broke the new fuel flow rate rule. In 2014 Formula 1 cars are limited to 100kg of fuel in the race and it cannot flow to the engine at a rate of more than 100kg per hour. It is this second part the, flow rate which Red Bull exceeded. The teams second car retired early with engine trouble.
The problem which lead to the disqualification stemmed from Red Bull lacking faith in the reliability of the FIA fuel flow meter and deciding to not use it in the race and relying on a backup mathematical solution instead.
The following is an edited version of what happened according to the stewards:
In free practice 1 the team noticed a difference in the flow reading between the first three runs and the fourth. Then that difference carried on throughout Free Practice 2. As a result the team used a different sensor on Saturday but did not get readings that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, so they were instructed to change the sensor within Parc Ferme on Saturday night.
They reverted back to the original sensor which had given the different readings in Free Practice 1. After qualifying the FIA’s technical representative in charge of the flow meters instructed Red Bull to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal.
The FIA technical representative went on to state to the Stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated (by Calibra Technologies). They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.
Red Bull then told the stewards that based on the difference observed between the two readings in FP1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable. Therefore, for the start of the race they chose to use their internal fuel flow model, rather than the values provided by the sensor, with the required offset.
A technical directive issued by the FIA at the start of march does set out the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used (which is apparently what Red Bull did).
a. The Technical Directive starts by stating: “The homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with Articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 Technical Regulations…” This is in conformity with Articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations.
b. The Technical Directive goes on to state: “If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a backup system” (emphasis added by the FIA.)
c. The backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.
The FIA’s technical representative observed through the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.
The stewards decided to disqualify the Red Bull as the team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure set out in the technical directive. Although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remained the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise (which the FIA did not do).
The Stewards were satisfied that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow and regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
Red Bull however denies any wrong doing and has said that it intends to appeal “following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with car three, the team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect. Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane. The team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.”
Gill Sensors however have responded to the claims that its product is unreliable issuing the following statement
“Following the Australian Grand Prix last weekend, the FIA have provided Gill Sensors with positive feedback on the performance of the Fuel Flow Meter, confirming their confidence in the development and stating the meters meet the FIA’s accuracy specification.
The meter development included an extensive testing programme, which involved liaising with many of the F1 teams for their valuable feedback on meter design and functionality. Meter calibration is handled by the FIA’s third party calibration company.
The meters utilise ultrasonic technology which was selected for its resilience in extreme operating conditions. The FIA chose Gill Sensors for this complex development because of Gill’s 29 years of proven experience in Ultrasonics.”
If the flow meters (above) are unreliable then it is likely more teams will have issues through the season, not just in Formula 1 but also in the World Endurance Championship which uses identical units in the LMP1 category. The flow meter is supplied by UK company Gill Sensors. Its method of operation and details of how the FIA and ACO are using can be found in the 2014 Racecar Engineering F1 preview – which can be downloaded free below.
Red Bull appealed the disqualification, but after a hearing in paris the stewards decision was upheld. The court found that the team could not prove that it was running legally and that the burden of proof was on them. A full analysis of the judgement appears in the June issue of Racecar Engineering magazine.
RACE 02: SEPANG, MALAYSIA
Car 01:
Chassis: -
Result: –
Car 03:
Chassis: –
Result: –
RACE 03: SAKHIR, BAHRAIN
Car 01:
Chassis: -
Result: 10th
Car 03:
Chassis: –
Result: 9th
RACE 04: SHANGHAI, CHINA
Car 01:
Chassis: -
Result: 10th
Car 03:
Chassis: –
Result: 9th
RACE 05: MONTMELO, SPAIN
Car 01:
Chassis: -
Result: 10th
Car 03:
Chassis: –
Result: 9th
RACE 06: MONTE CARLO, MONACO
Car 01:
Chassis: -
Result: 10th
Car 03:
Chassis: –
Result: 9th
